QUESTION: Could you talk a little bit about the Bush administration's approach of working with other governments to seek voluntary greenhouse reductions? Have they been able to show any progress at all beyond their claims that the negotiation is ongoing to get voluntary international reductions?

MR. LASH: I haven't seen it. I have not seen the reductions, and voluntary action is not a substitute for international agreement. The United States is the largest source of the pollution that causes global warming. We need to put some skin in the game if we want to negotiate for real.

QUESTION: You saw how the Bush Administration operated at the recent Montreal climate negotiations. The chief U.S. negotiator said he didn't want to discuss future options and then he objected to the various non-Kyoto ways forward. Do you see any likelihood of the Administration changing or do we have to wait for a regime change?

MR. LASH: Well, it was interesting that the U.S. chief negotiator first walked out of and then had to walk back into the climate talks. You would think the Administration would try to offer other alternatives and persuade people. But the more important signal is what the world is saying. The world is simply saying to the U.S. that you can join us or not, but we will continue these discussions. Will the Administration change its position before 2008? I find it hard to believe. I can believe that Congress will pass some sort of climate legislation before 2008, but I don't think the U.S. position on international cooperation will change.

QUESTION: Do you have a sense of what kind of legislation might be passed and how significant it will be in the context of this international climate debate?

MR. LASH: There is a long history that says just before elections the Congress tends to pay more attention to the environmental issues that are troubling the public. This issue is going to play in the midterm elections, but it will play more in the 2008 elections. Therefore, I think it's likely that Congress will look for things to vote on. But, they are not likely to pass mandatory limits in 2006 — perhaps something symbolic.

QUESTION: Do you have any good reason to believe that Exxon will change?

MR. LASH: I'm speculating. They have a relatively good recent record on conventional pollution. They are an outlier in their industry on climate change. They should want to get it right — for their stockholders, their employees, and their reputation.

QUESTION: If renewables are going to be the thing to watch in 2006, inevitably many of the renewables — nuclear, natural gas, and wind — involve the building of new facilities, and that's always been where the environmental movement has kind of coalesced. They have been generally against new facilities that generate power.

MR. LASH: Yes, if we want to address climate change we have to decide what we are for, and that will be a tough debate in a movement that is politically diverse. I personally think wind turbines have an elegant grace.

QUESTION: There's been increasing talk over the last several years about the incremental use of renewables. Renewables aren't going to be wholesale replacing fossil fuels in 2006, so what of significance will be happening?

MR. LASH: I would look at where people invest and how much money is going into renewables, as well as what industrial users do to purchase renewable supplies. The reason that WRI works with fourteen companies to buy green power is that we believe it will accelerate that market, drive down prices, and increase opportunities. WRI is headquartered in a building owned by the American Psychological Association. We've convinced them to go entirely with green power, in our building and in another one they own. Five years ago, they couldn't have done this if they'd wanted to — they couldn't have found the green power to buy. Now they're doing it at no significant price premium. Their tenants love it. We love it. We're walking the talk.

I believe such opportunities are going to increase. I think you will see an increasing effort to provide individual citizens with information on how they can change what they do. I'm talking about more than just buying compact florescent bulbs, but about how they can make decisions in terms of their automobiles, their electricity supply, the investment of their pension funds. I think that will have an impact. I think people want to get engaged.